Replies

I realize that as soon as you saw the letters "ACLU" in a post, you assumed that they must be center of the debate. However, as much as you would like this discussion to be about the relative merits of the ACLU, it just isn't the point. I did not "jump[] to the defense" of the ACLU's actions, potential or actual, nor am I going to make any defense now.

If you'd like to spend more time arguing a point no one is disputing, I suppose that's your business. I don't find it terribly enlightening, however, to discuss a topic in which the all responses will essentially be "Yeah! Me too!".

My original post responded to a complaint about the AP and the ACLU as a first reaction to reading the story about the alleged incident at Haditha. My comment was not a statement about the veracity of the AP nor the motives of ACLU. It was intended (but obviously not recieved) as a comment about someone using a story about an alleged tragedy as a platform to complain about the ACLU. And at this point, it is rather uninteresting to keep rehashing a third party's first response to a post. So I'll stop.

Frankly you didn't point out what constitutional rights were being whittled away.

My post was not in regards to this thread. It was a Freepmail regarding the limitation of First Amendment rights in response to Fred Phelps and his idiot friends. If you'd like to discuss that issue, I believe I sent you a ping to the thread.

My comment was not a statement about the veracity of the AP nor the motives of ACLU. It was intended (but obviously not recieved) as a comment about someone using a story about an alleged tragedy as a platform to complain about the ACLU.

The point is you didn't consider it prudent to "(use) a story about an alleged tragedy as a platform" while disregarding the clear history of the AP (particuarly since 2000) and the ACLU since it's inception but more distinctly since the mid-sixties. Essentially you "used a story about an alleged tragedy as a platform" as a platform to allege a tragedy of thought. Your initial reaction to that poster's digs at AP/ACLU is similar to liberals who felt United 93 was "too soon."

I don't find it terribly enlightening, however, to discuss a topic in which the all responses will essentially be "Yeah! Me too!".

Most threads are that way, some are not. Your posts to other stories clearly show that you are arguing for arguments sake - nitpicking (such as in this case) while put off when someone nitpicks about your nitpicking.